Re: [IRCA] Reposting from www.qrz.com

[Bruce Portzer <bportzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I understand it, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the FCC sole 
jurisdiction over r.f. exposure matters.  In other words, local 
officials cannot legally consider health issues when deciding whether to 
approve radio facilities.  The FCC established r.f. exposure 
requirements soon after the 1996 Telecomm Act, and all licensees are 
required to make sure the public is not exposed to electromagnetic 
fields that exceed the legal limits. 

That said, it's possible for a local board to respond to someone's 
exposure concerns based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, but I would 
expect the courts to rule in the station's favor when and if this comes 
up for appeal (assuming the station can show it will stay within the 
legal r.f. exposure limitations).  The county would need to show 
evidence that the FCC's r.f. exposure limits are inadequate.  There have 
been similar legal arguments in recent years, particularly with respect 
to cell phone use, but so far the courts have ruled against them due to 
lack of evidence.

Bruce

Scott Fybush wrote:
> Joe Miller, KJ8O wrote:
>   
>> RADIO HEALTH:  RADIO AND LEUKEMIA LINK HALTS TOWERS
>>
>> A county official in Washington state has ruled that
>> two AM towers can’t be built until possible health
>> dangers of electromagnetic energy are analyzed.  This
>> is an action that could have far ranging implications
>> for anyone wanting to put in a new radio installation
>> of any kind in that state.
>>
>> The owners of KRKO A-M in Everett, Washington wants to
>> add two towers to four that have been approved for a
>> site south of Snohomish.  The Snohomish County
>> official making the decision to delay the project
>> cited a recent study published by The American Journal
>> of Epidemiology.  It found that children who live
>> within a certain distance of A-M radio antenna
>> structures are twice as likely to develop leukemia.  
>> (RW)
>>     
>
> The study in question, which actually came out of South Korea, is, shall 
> we say, questionable. While it did observe an increase, that increase 
> was within the study's own margin of error - and even at that, there 
> were many other environmental factors that weren't controlled for in the 
> study. (As any of us who chase tower sites know all too well, they're 
> rarely located in the "nicer" sections of town, and there are usually a 
> lot of other potential health problems associated with the areas in 
> which towers are typically sited.)
>
> That said, the study certainly provides yet another useful hook on which 
> NIMBYesque neighbors can hang their opposition to tower construction. 
> (In the case of KRKO, which has now been fighting for well over a 
> decade, at a legal cost that's now surely well into the seven figures, 
> the neighbors simply don't want towers of any kind impinging on their 
> view in their fairly rural area east of Everett.)
>
> s
>   

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx